Tag Archives: gender

eye open·er

eye open·er (ˈī-ˌōp-nər, -ˌō-pə-) n.  1.  something that causes the eyes to open in astonishment or realization, as a piece of news, discovery, etc.  2. [Slang] an alcoholic drink, especially one taken early in the day.



Beyoncé & Who Run(s) The World


Although I’ve always loved Beyoncé as an artist, more recently I have come to deeply appreciate her and love the way she makes me consider questions about aesthetics and pop culture, about myself and the world I live in and move through. Part of this has come from examining and analyzing her videos. I brought “Countdown” into my freshman composition class so we could look at the video’s aesthetics—choreography, costumes, styling, settings—and how they was greatly influenced by others and in parts taken wholecloth from Belgian Choreographer Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker. In doing so, we talked about the context of her as a pop diva, about the history of music videos (hers and others), about issues of ethics and recycling vs. plagiarizing. A few weeks ago, my friend Meg introduced me to her song and video “Who Run The World (Girls).”

On a first watch, I was taken by the choreography, strong and dynamic, by Beyoncé’s holding the leashes of hyenas in a desert, by her hair taking on a light shade of blonde and the sometimes “whitening” of her that happens either with or without her permission. Meg told me how Beyoncé had seen videos of the two men from Mozambican kwaito dance group Tofo Tofo who choreographed part of the video and dance alongside her. She told her people she had to work with them. The body movements and the drumbeats are instantly recognizable as stemming from African dance. They are powerful, they showcase the fluid and sharp movement of bodies to strong rhythms. I showed “Who Run the World” to another friend Amanda, and she was struck by the end of the video, when, after a song about girls ruling the world, Beyoncé leads her army of women—clad in bright flowing dresses, combat boots and garter belts—up to uniformed riot policemen and leads her army in a salute to them. “Whoa, that is something,” she said, and went on to talk about that moment as a sort of insight into these women as powerful not only in the way they execute force but in how they choose to vocalize or not vocalize, how they choose to be assertive and how they choose to, at least seemingly, submit.

For me, this video is a striking commentary about women as powerful beings. About how women are sources of both sensuality and real power and the proposal that these don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Women use their wiles not just as manipulation of power but because this sensuality—in their bodies, their souls, their nature—is a part of who they are at their foundation.

This is in strong contrast to other representations of how women are portrayed as using their sexuality and sensuality. Oftentimes, women in film and media are shown using their sensuality as a form of trickery or a last ditch effort to save them. (These examples also often do an injustice to straight men, portraying them as oversimplified beings, oversexed dolts who can’t tell their wristwatch from their crotch.) If she is in a bind, a Charlie’s Angel could strut out in a bikini to distract a villain. Or Liv Tyler and Alicia Silverstone in the Aerosmith video “Crazy” can make eyes at the convenience store clerk to shoplift as much loot as they want. Or maybe when about to be raped by a man, a woman will use her sensuality to convince him she has changed her mind to buy a few seconds until she can grab the glass vase from the shelf and break it over his head. In these examples, a woman’s sensuality is a source of power but also a source of shame and guilt because she is using it in situations that allow her (and it) to be demeaned by others; her sexuality is the only thing she can use to help her because her smarts, her skills, her knowledge are nonexistent or not enough. She is objectified: her sensuality is reduced to being her only power instead of a deeply rooted part of who she is as a whole being—and that whole being, her real source of power.

This is not true in “Who Rule The World.” One of my favorite moments of brilliance in the video begins at time marker 2:20. In a close-up of Beyoncé, she sings the words “You will do anything for me” as she makes seductive facial expressions, looking away from the camera. Then, as she sings “Who Rule the World?”, she looks directly into the camera with soft eyes and smiles sweetly, a sort of “cover of Cosmopolitan” smile. But immediately after, she scrunches her face into a strong, aggressive expression and shouts: “Girls!” For me, it’s not about Beyoncé being coy and taking advantage of her unsuspecting male viewer. It’s about her knowing that her power rests in both her sweetness expressed in the question and in the strength and power delivered in the answer.



In the video, the women dancers wear military jackets strung over bras. They wear official army caps with metal stars. Later, some of them, including Beyoncé, wear brightly-colored flowing dresses with long slits up the sides; others don camisoles, underwear and long flowing capes. The dancers wear garters and stockings and black combat boots. At moments their underwear shows, but instead of this being a kind of seduction, it is a kind of powerful revealing. Because of the capes and slits in the dresses, the viewers can see the strength and power of these women’s bodies, and through them, the strength and power of women’s bodies in general. And in showcasing the strength of their hips and thighs, in both the costuming and the choreography, we remember that there has been, since forever really, a masculining of what power looks like: in human bodies and in the world. It looks like war. It looks like dominance. It looks like carved pecks and abdomens. It looks like giant sculpted Popeye arms. This video is saying: power looks like the line of muscle definition in a woman’s thighs, it looks like the delicate swoop of an arched back, it looks like the ability to dance with both subtle and sharp movement, hip sways and shoulder snaps. It is beautiful and it is strong.



As a woman raised in the South to understand that women are supposed to look and behave a certain way, I have not always been able to connect with or honor all that I am as a woman: my sensitivity and my power (and the power that comes from my sensitivity), my soft curves and my strong legs (and the strength that comes from having both soft and sturdy parts of my body). And it is really refreshing to have a perspective that is not an either/or, that does not ask me to sacrifice one for the other. Because fuck that. I don’t have to and I don’t want to. And not in some sort of I am Woman, Hear me Roar way. More that I am woman and I can roar if I want to. I can also whisper. I can dance and I can run. I can compromise and I can be unyielding. More that I am a woman and all that this encompasses. And that to be a woman, to be me, is to be beautiful and valuable and strong. I run this mother—




Filed under weekly words

and the first word is…


port⋅ance (pôr/t’ns), n. [Early Mod. Eng. <Fr. portance < porter, to bear, carry; cf. –ANCE], [Archaic], conduct; bearing; carriage; demeanor

(definition from Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language: College Edition. The World Publishing Company. Copyright 1955.)

So here it is, the first word for the dictionary project. I find it interesting that portance is our first word here given my recent obsession with the AMC show Mad Men. Everything about that show revolves around decorum, around the appropriate way to walk and dress, around what it means to be a gentleman or a lady. There are rules for how the advertising executives should conduct themselves with clients. There are rules about the ways wives should take care of their husbands, home and children. There are rules about how marriages should proceed, how wives should look the other way, how husbands should be discreet with their affairs outside the home. And there are judgments based on whether women and men fit into the molds predetermined for them, whether they come from good families.

But in addition to those preset rules and values, there are also excuses made for acting outside of them. Men should always be polite and respectful to women, but, you know, boys will be boys. Men should know how to hold their drink but they should not overdo it. There is a fine line between a good businessman and a lush. You want your wife to act like a lady, but certainly not your mistress. Single ladies should be pretty and proper to attract men, but everyone knows men love seductresses. There is a fine line between a sexy woman and a whore.

I think the most fascinating thing about the show for me is that these rules are so different than the ones we follow. Dress codes have changed. Gender dynamics have changed. The nuclear family has changed. And yet, even as so much has changed in almost a half a century, there is always the memory of this time. Its residue factors into every decision and interaction we have in our daily lives. I remember as I apply for jobs that I would not have been considered for these positions fifty years ago. I remember as I am questioned by family members about my love life that being thirty and single fifty years ago would have been even more of a stigma than it is today. I remember as I see women navigate their work and family lives that there was a time that they were expected to take care of their family and be contented with that. If they were not, they could be sent to an “analyst” to figure out what was wrong with them.

A friend of mine who also watches the show questioned her own fascination with the show and with a time period so many decades ago. She wondered if it meant she would have rather lived then or if it was because her parents had existed in that world and in a similar office environment. I think there was a certain safety in having clearer lines of conduct then, particularly in the distinctions between men and women. You knew how you were supposed to behave. The answers were clear and universal, and all you needed to do was follow the handbook already written for you.

There was safety and seeming ease, but with these strict guidelines came severe limitations. What happens when you are supposed to be one way but you find yourself more complicated as a person than those rules allow? What if you are a man who enjoys taking care of your children and home? What if you are a housewife who enjoys hunting and fishing? What if you have an inheritance but find yourself without purpose and with a desire to do something, to work somewhere?

I think we are a little bit slow to recognize how many rules of conduct are still in place in our daily lives. Everything has changed—it is true. However, it is dangerous for us to assume that these values do not linger on, especially as the show has gained a following of people nostalgic for that period in history. For the truth is as I watch the women secretaries be ogled by their bosses and cohorts, I think back to times when I have felt demeaned as a woman in the workplace. As I see the lead character Don Draper reckon with his past and with his predetermined role as breadwinner and strong husband, I think of all of the men I have known who have suffered intensely from trying to maintain their masculine role and having no one to share their trials with. We would do well to see this show not merely as a reminder of what was but as a clue into what expectations continue to exist. What is good and helpful about them? What harms us as individuals and communities? What rules of conduct exist because it contributes to us being good, kind human beings? And what obsessions with portance keep us and those around us bound?


Leave a comment

Filed under weekly words